Ok, I know I was right on one thing too that you know your stuff when it comes to pandemics and Sweden. Never implied otherwise. I take your point on making decisions based on informed overall health care of the citizens. The assumption that everyone has even the same options as you do was my critique (heck we don't even have massive testing capability, in USA there isn't nearly enough). You live in literally another world there (small compared to the hardest-hit countries in Europe). It could be construed as speaking on a high horse, or even ignorant of others.Interestingly enough, I felt much the same about your post. A well-written reply, but ultimately wrong.
As for your criticism, that I feel I know better than the scientist, you are partly right, partly wrong. True enough, me and some of my immediate family members (wife, brother, and father ) are a bit of smart-asses, who tend to think we know best in lots of different issues. No doubt, sometimes a more humble approach from our side would be wiser.
However, when discussing the pandemic, we are not total amateurs. My father is a professor of medicine (he was one of the referees on the Lancet article I referred to) and my wife is a statistics professor, that knows a thing or two about data interpretation and data analysis. While me and my brother are the least qualified in our family discussions about the pandemic, being physics professors, at least we understand the mathematical modeling aspects of the problem. Still, with that being said, obviously, none of us works with the core issues related to policymaking in a pandemic, and thus our respective points of view should be regarded as that of mere laymen, our academic titles notwithstanding. So, the bottom line is that I agree with you that policy-making should be made by the true experts (those who study the relevant science issues for a living), not by some hobby-experts (like, for example, myself).
The problem is, to find the best policy is not just an issue of infectious spreading. In most countries, the experts guiding the politicians are working at an authority specialized in infection protection. I guess that makes sense since it is an infection we are dealing with. Still, it is not ideal, since many of the health issues of a pandemic do not depend only on the virus itself, like psychic disorders, heart diseases, cancer, etc, see the Lancet article I referred to.
In Sweden, the experts guiding the politicians work on the public health agency. It is a relatively new authority, which was founded as late as 2014 when the authority specialized in infectious spreading was fused with the institute for public health. Thus, in contrast to most other countries, while the Swedish authority has lots of experts on infectious spreading, they also have access to experts with a broader perspective on health issues. In Sweden, while the politicians have been praised by some for following the advice of Swedish experts, they have also gotten criticism "why are you only listening to the Swedish experts, obviously, experts in other countries give different advice, favoring more severe restrictions." I think much of the difference is explained by the broad set of experts employed by the public health agency in Sweden. The fact that the experts in infectious spreading have to weigh their arguments against other health arguments, makes for a more balanced analysis. Also, I think the Swedish politicians have been wise, not falling for the temptation to take ineffective measures just to show decisiveness.
With that said, you are certainly right about one thing. We won't know who is right before everything is over, and maybe not even then.
Containment, public health security and political stability at the expence of other potential illnesses, disorders derived and/from the economical devastation was the only approach with social economic help and a gradual exit. Thus alleviating the burden to get room space for other illnesses and prevent getting to an Ecuador level systematic chaos. That was my point. Scientist here in this part of the world and many, didn't even have to venture into another possibility, with our tendency to do what we want, whenever pleases and social complete mess, a rabid behaviourist approach was the way to go from the start.